well I meant the reveal more than anything. but my point stands - Microsoft is undoubtedly aware of how much people hate Always Online stuff. If they are doing it anyway, it means they've decided that the benefits to them outweigh the dangers. A bit more internet anger isn't going to change that analysis.
Given the existence of social media, internet anger as you put it actually has quite a bit of clout.
Taranis on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
As much as I'd like to believe that Microsoft is digging its own grave, I'm actually pretty worried that it will succeed. Microsoft loves exclusivity contracts, and developers love DRM. The next XBox will have DRM built in at seemingly no charge to the publisher, making the Xbox the ideal platform for AAA titles. Hell, publishers can even avoid most negative PR caused by DRM and an anti used games stance by publishing on the 720 alone. Exclusivity and the popularity of a console within social circles greatly drive sales. Sony seems to have little chance if they can't attract enough big budget titles, third party developers, and provide a quality online service.
Premature doom and gloom? Sure. But things don't look so great from my perspective. The prospect of a post-720 GFWL gives me chills as a primarily PC gamer. Cracks and mods mean little since at that point they'd only be a reactionary stopgap to a changed status quo.
I dunno. Look at the immense shitstorms caused just by games that have always-online DRM; Ubisoft dropped the idea entirely, and the stuff with Diablo 3 and Simcity have soured a lot of people on something they shouldn't even have been able to notice, much less had interfering with their games. Now imagine that applied to a system that not only won't play any of your old game, but you have to buy new copies all the time to play anything and the always-online hassle applies to every game.
That always-online notion would lock out a huge portion of the market.
Diablo 3 sold like 12+ million copies. Simcity sold a fair amount too.
EA announced that Sim City sold about 1.1 million or so the first week.
Then they went awfully quiet about the sales immediately after. I am really curious to see how Sim City went after the news about the server disaster spread beyond the first week and the review score on metacritic entirely tanked afterwards. I think Blizzard being Blizzard got away with one on Diablo 3 but I am doubting that EA managed to with Sim City (especially when players begun tearing the game apart to show how shallow its gameplay actually is).
As much as I'd like to believe that Microsoft is digging its own grave, I'm actually pretty worried that it will succeed. Microsoft loves exclusivity contracts, and developers love DRM. The next XBox will have DRM built in at seemingly no charge to the publisher, making the Xbox the ideal platform for AAA titles. Hell, publishers can even avoid most negative PR caused by DRM and an anti used games stance by publishing on the 720 alone. Exclusivity and the popularity of a console within social circles greatly drive sales. Sony seems to have little chance if they can't attract enough big budget titles, third party developers, and provide a quality online service.
Premature doom and gloom? Sure. But things don't look so great from my perspective. The prospect of a post-720 GFWL gives me chills as a primarily PC gamer. Cracks and mods mean little since at that point they'd only be a reactionary stopgap to a changed status quo.
I dunno. Look at the immense shitstorms caused just by games that have always-online DRM; Ubisoft dropped the idea entirely, and the stuff with Diablo 3 and Simcity have soured a lot of people on something they shouldn't even have been able to notice, much less had interfering with their games. Now imagine that applied to a system that not only won't play any of your old game, but you have to buy new copies all the time to play anything and the always-online hassle applies to every game.
That always-online notion would lock out a huge portion of the market.
Diablo 3 sold like 12+ million copies. Simcity sold a fair amount too.
Diablo and Sim City are games. They're individual titles. They can afford to piss off a big portion of the installed base because they can thrive off a portion of that same installed base (no game not named Minesweeper or Solitaire has reached 100% of a platform). I have little doubt that the 360 installed base could support an MMO with 12 million users as well. The problem then becomes when the platform itself takes an action that pisses people off to the point that functionality is impaired. When Sim City or Diablo were down, you could still play Skyrim. But think back to 2011 when PSN went down. Users couldn't buy stuff from the store or play online games, but everything else still worked (including non-PSN online services like Netflix). But with this new idea of connectivity, the console would have been effectively bricked until they got PSN back up.
As much as I'd like to believe that Microsoft is digging its own grave, I'm actually pretty worried that it will succeed. Microsoft loves exclusivity contracts, and developers love DRM. The next XBox will have DRM built in at seemingly no charge to the publisher, making the Xbox the ideal platform for AAA titles. Hell, publishers can even avoid most negative PR caused by DRM and an anti used games stance by publishing on the 720 alone. Exclusivity and the popularity of a console within social circles greatly drive sales. Sony seems to have little chance if they can't attract enough big budget titles, third party developers, and provide a quality online service.
Premature doom and gloom? Sure. But things don't look so great from my perspective. The prospect of a post-720 GFWL gives me chills as a primarily PC gamer. Cracks and mods mean little since at that point they'd only be a reactionary stopgap to a changed status quo.
I dunno. Look at the immense shitstorms caused just by games that have always-online DRM; Ubisoft dropped the idea entirely, and the stuff with Diablo 3 and Simcity have soured a lot of people on something they shouldn't even have been able to notice, much less had interfering with their games. Now imagine that applied to a system that not only won't play any of your old game, but you have to buy new copies all the time to play anything and the always-online hassle applies to every game.
That always-online notion would lock out a huge portion of the market.
Diablo 3 sold like 12+ million copies. Simcity sold a fair amount too.
EA announced that Sim City sold about 1.1 million or so the first week.
Then they went awfully quiet about the sales immediately after. I am really curious to see how Sim City went after the news about the server disaster spread beyond the first week and the review score on metacritic entirely tanked afterwards. I think Blizzard being Blizzard got away with one on Diablo 3 but I am doubting that EA managed to with Sim City (especially when players begun tearing the game apart to show how shallow its gameplay actually is).
Yeah, I'm really curious how Simcity ended up selling. I think it's likely to be worse off the D3 not because of the company, but because it seemed to affect more people or be worse.
The larger point is that I don't think always-online is as anathema to the consumer as many seem to think. Or would like.
The console market may well react differently though. We'll have to see what MS actually does.
As much as I'd like to believe that Microsoft is digging its own grave, I'm actually pretty worried that it will succeed. Microsoft loves exclusivity contracts, and developers love DRM. The next XBox will have DRM built in at seemingly no charge to the publisher, making the Xbox the ideal platform for AAA titles. Hell, publishers can even avoid most negative PR caused by DRM and an anti used games stance by publishing on the 720 alone. Exclusivity and the popularity of a console within social circles greatly drive sales. Sony seems to have little chance if they can't attract enough big budget titles, third party developers, and provide a quality online service.
Premature doom and gloom? Sure. But things don't look so great from my perspective. The prospect of a post-720 GFWL gives me chills as a primarily PC gamer. Cracks and mods mean little since at that point they'd only be a reactionary stopgap to a changed status quo.
I dunno. Look at the immense shitstorms caused just by games that have always-online DRM; Ubisoft dropped the idea entirely, and the stuff with Diablo 3 and Simcity have soured a lot of people on something they shouldn't even have been able to notice, much less had interfering with their games. Now imagine that applied to a system that not only won't play any of your old game, but you have to buy new copies all the time to play anything and the always-online hassle applies to every game.
That always-online notion would lock out a huge portion of the market.
Diablo 3 sold like 12+ million copies. Simcity sold a fair amount too.
Diablo and Sim City are games. They're individual titles. They can afford to piss off a big portion of the installed base because they can thrive off a portion of that same installed base (no game not named Minesweeper or Solitaire has reached 100% of a platform). I have little doubt that the 360 installed base could support an MMO with 12 million users as well. The problem then becomes when the platform itself takes an action that pisses people off to the point that functionality is impaired. When Sim City or Diablo were down, you could still play Skyrim. But think back to 2011 when PSN went down. Users couldn't buy stuff from the store or play online games, but everything else still worked (including non-PSN online services like Netflix). But with this new idea of connectivity, the console would have been effectively bricked until they got PSN back up.
Also consumers did not have a choice with Sim City or Diablo 3. If they wanted to play those games they had no choice but to deal with the always online. That won't be the case with the new Xbox, since the PS4 will have an almost entirely identical selection of games without the always online component.
Now publishers may prefer to only publish there games on the always online XBOX but in this new world of AAA titles needed ridiculous levels of sales they will have no choice but to publish on the PS4 assuming the initial PS4 sales are not WIIU levels of bad.
Remember this whenever you're talking about the sales of a mega brand like Diablo, though this also applies to lesser brands as well.
Early sales of your game are based off of the impressions people had of your previous titles and not the game you put out right now. This only doesn't apply when a game switches to a new console (not applicable for a PC game at all) or when the game has a ton of negative press surrounding it.
D4 sales will plummet unless Blizzard turns the game around with expansions.
Remember this whenever you're talking about the sales of a mega brand like Diablo, though this also applies to lesser brands as well.
Early sales of your game are based off of the impressions people had of your previous titles and not the game you put out right now. This only doesn't apply when a game switches to a new console (not applicable for a PC game at all) or when the game has a ton of negative press surrounding it.
D4 sales will plummet unless Blizzard turns the game around with expansions.
Uh, no. D3 sold 3.5 million it's first day, ~6.5 million it's first week and about 12+ million to date. It sees like 1 million unique users a day. It both sold well after the initial server issues had already hit the news and continues to have a fairly healthy user base. There's no reason to think D3 expansion sales or D4 sales (a decade from now) will plummet at all, nor to think the bad press has been particularly hard on the games sales or future sales.
There may be truth in frandelgearslip's point about a lack of choice in these cases (people may perper no always-online if possible), but the evidence seems pretty good that people are quite willingly to simply deal with it.
The PC audience, at the very least, just doesn't care that much. Maybe console buyers care more? Who knows at this point.
It's not just the always online thing in D3's case; it's also their complete bungling of the endgame and forcing the Auction House. People are fed up and unless things change this is going to be the sales pinnacle.
It's not just the always online thing in D3's case; it's also their complete bungling of the endgame and forcing the Auction House. People are fed up and unless things change this is going to be the sales pinnacle.
Oh really? Based on what?
Cause the actual numbers seem to suggest this whole "people are fed up" and "Diablo 3 is a failure" thing is internet hyperbole not grounded in reality.
It's not a failure at all; it sold more than only a handful of PC games and made a ton of money for them. It's definitely hurt Blizzards reputation though and that shows over time.
3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
+1
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Believe it or not, people can partake in something (like a video game) while still wishing it were better or something else.
D4 sales will plummet unless Blizzard turns the game around with expansions.
There is the expectation that d3 will improve via expansions, the vanilla d2 if you remember wasnt exactly stellar (good not great until expansions) and blizzard has always dedicated resources after release of a game to refine and tune the game to remain 'fresh'.
In my opinion EA does not have a bar set as high as Blizzard as a Dev/Publisher and I'd be curious if the target audience for Sim City is as large as the target audience of D3. It could be entirely possible based on their marketing strategy and development costs that 1.5 M units is a success 2.5m is new boats for all upper management at EA and 5m is a triumph.
I don't think you can fairly do a 1:1 comparison between an individual game like D3 or SimCity to a console. The issues surrounding those games were limited to those games. If you couldn't play SimCity, you could still play other games just fine. And the kinda sad reality is that this doesn't really happen all that often. Or at least with any frequent regularity that people learn. One game shits the bed, but the other dozens that are released that month work just fine, and people end up forgetting about the problem. Until another game does it. That's why I think in some way people don't learn and keep putting up with it.
With the console, it's going to affect everything. Today you can't play Halo 5. Tomorrow you can't play CoD5. If the issues keep compounding, one after another in rapid succession, people will snap and wise up. And at that point they'll write the console off and junk it, going to whoever is offering the path of least resistance.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
It's not a failure at all; it sold more than only a handful of PC games and made a ton of money for them. It's definitely hurt Blizzards reputation though and that shows over time.
Has it?
I'm saying you are continuing to make suppositions about the effect of the game and it's always online component based on, at best, anecdotal internet whinging. It's not a credible basis for much of anything.
The game, and HOTS afaik, seem to be doing fine so I'm not seeing how any of what happened effected much of anything.
Believe it or not, people can partake in something (like a video game) while still wishing it were better or something else.
I'm sure they can, I'm not seeing why it matters though. "They whinged and whined about it and then bought it anyway" is not a terribly bad outcome for the company making the product.
Consumer purchasing decisions say more about what they actually value and think then what people complain about.
I don't think you can fairly do a 1:1 comparison between an individual game like D3 or SimCity to a console. The issues surrounding those games were limited to those games. If you couldn't play SimCity, you could still play other games just fine. And the kinda sad reality is that this doesn't really happen all that often. Or at least with any frequent regularity that people learn. One game shits the bed, but the other dozens that are released that month work just fine, and people end up forgetting about the problem. Until another game does it. That's why I think in some way people don't learn and keep putting up with it.
With the console, it's going to affect everything. Today you can't play Halo 5. Tomorrow you can't play CoD5. If the issues keep compounding, one after another in rapid succession, people will snap and wise up. And at that point they'll write the console off and junk it, going to whoever is offering the path of least resistance.
I agree, but then again the 360 was still pretty populer even in spite of the ubiquitous RROD. Of course it's not the same thing, and Microsoft had a semi decent warranty going, I'm worried about how much gamers put with when it comes to platforms.
I think you are under estimating peoples ability to adapt to evolving technology. There was a time when I would never even consider logging into a software distribution system to play a game online, no matter how much fun counter strike was. Now I have no issue about allowing steam to run.
The same can be said for origin (they have like what 30m accounts?). An always on feature will become more ubiquitous as better service is rendered via it, and as broadband and wifi improve (particularly in the US where it still lags behind other 'developed' nations). Imagine on a always 'ON' console you have maybe 1/1000 bots and cheats in your online play where as the alternative console without is 1/50. This of course is not a real life example, but as a possibility that should exist in the future.
I'm a PC user and my 360 hasn't been turned on since GTA 4 released (and christ if I don't feel the a bit of a draw to hook it back up come September) but technology changes and what is considered unthinkable today can be commonplace tomorrow.
+3
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Believe it or not, people can partake in something (like a video game) while still wishing it were better or something else.
I'm sure they can, I'm not seeing why it matters though. "They whinged and whined about it and then bought it anyway" is not a terribly bad outcome for the company making the product.
Consumer purchasing decisions say more about what they actually value and think then what people complain about.
You're assuming that every company ever doesn't listen to any feedback whatsoever, be it letters, emails, etc. Yes there are some companies (EA) that do this, but not every company follows that trait.
Anyway I wish today's PA comic were true because it'd be a way better discussion we could be having:
Believe it or not, people can partake in something (like a video game) while still wishing it were better or something else.
I'm sure they can, I'm not seeing why it matters though. "They whinged and whined about it and then bought it anyway" is not a terribly bad outcome for the company making the product.
Consumer purchasing decisions say more about what they actually value and think then what people complain about.
You're assuming that every company ever doesn't listen to any feedback whatsoever, be it letters, emails, etc. Yes there are some companies (EA) that do this, but not every company follows that trait.
I'm assuming a company that looks at a bunch of internet wharble-garble and then looks at a balance sheet saying "Game makes shitloads of money" comes to the conclusion that said wharble-garble is not representative of the general feelings of their consumers and/or particularly relevant.
+3
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
They will listen to internet anger if it is supported by sales data.
If it isn't, it will be dismissed.
And so far, I don't think any always-online game has sold badly.
There's no need to reach Microsoft with "internet anger" just other consumers. If you reach other consumers, especially your friends, you can make a dent in their bottom line.
I don't think it's completely fair to dismiss everything as senseless misdirected rage, even if the majority of it is. That anger does come from somewhere, and even if the sales come in the end companies don't want to deal with angry assholes more than individual people do. Always online is here to stay, if nothing else on a per game basis, but anybody pushing it is going to be on their toes and falling over themselves to justify it next go around. Maybe even justifying it with good gameplay reasons!
Well. Best case scenario. Real-life scenario is two execs talking about how ridiculous fans are while drinking scotch and snorting money off of other money.
OneAngryPossum on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I think delivery of internet rage matters in terms of it being picked up on or not. They're not scanning this forum or anyone's blogs or twitter posts for it. But their own forum(s) and email? Yeah, that's where companies listen to internet feedback since it's the actual place for it.
Problem is, how many people do it without using abusive language.
There's no need to reach Microsoft with "internet anger" just other consumers. If you reach other consumers, especially your friends, you can make a dent in their bottom line.
the goal isn't to make a dent in their bottom line. that isn't the end goal.
the end goal is to show them that always-on is wrong, and if they have already decided to go that way, I don't think you're going to be able to change their mind - they are well aware of how much everyone hates it.
There's no need to reach Microsoft with "internet anger" just other consumers. If you reach other consumers, especially your friends, you can make a dent in their bottom line.
the goal isn't to make a dent in their bottom line. that isn't the end goal.
the end goal is to show them that always-on is wrong, and if they have already decided to go that way, I don't think you're going to be able to change their mind - they are well aware of how much everyone hates it.
Justifying always on with good gameplay reasons is the ultimate oxymoron. Who cares how good the gameplay is if you can't play?
But but... pirates!
Really though, this logic fails to enter into the decisions of the corporate machine. Honestly it comes down to "Make the most money and let PR try and handle the rest." These places don't have to 'cater' to their customers anymore because there are so many people still buying their products they don't care and it's just where we are right now.
@Henroid - You nailed it on the head imo. I think the World of Warcraft forums are a good example of the 'active community' being represented by the wrong folk. There are other communities I could point to, but this is one of the 'larger' ones.
There is a percentage of people who do not care and just enjoy their time.
There is a percentage of people who do care, but don't say anything out loud because they figure it is useless among the sea of opinions.
There is a percentage of people who do care and make a few detailed, suggestive, well-thought, and constructive comments/posts/ideas. These get a few solid posts and then drop to the bottom because "LOL TOO LONG DID NOT READ!"
There is another percentage who scream and whine like 8 year olds and call the company everything but a child of God. These are the ones that tend to post the most and be considered 'the loudest.'
"X Company are shitfucks" is gonna get you the most response unfortunately, and that is what makes and stays on the surface. Some people have their finger on the pulse of what is going on, and some... just have it jammed up their ass. Generally speaking of course.
There's no need to reach Microsoft with "internet anger" just other consumers. If you reach other consumers, especially your friends, you can make a dent in their bottom line.
the goal isn't to make a dent in their bottom line. that isn't the end goal.
the end goal is to show them that always-on is wrong, and if they have already decided to go that way, I don't think you're going to be able to change their mind - they are well aware of how much everyone hates it.
Sales data, bottom line, same thing.
you're missing my point.
reducing their sales is a means to an end, not an end of itself.
that end being making MS (and others) realise that they shouldn't do Always-On. If they've already decided they want to do it for the nextbox, they've obviously already considered the popular opinion around always-on (nobody can not know about the general feeling on this feature) and dismissed it as not significant enough to discard the benefits that always-on provides to them/publishers.
There's no need to reach Microsoft with "internet anger" just other consumers. If you reach other consumers, especially your friends, you can make a dent in their bottom line.
the goal isn't to make a dent in their bottom line. that isn't the end goal.
the end goal is to show them that always-on is wrong, and if they have already decided to go that way, I don't think you're going to be able to change their mind - they are well aware of how much everyone hates it.
Sales data, bottom line, same thing.
you're missing my point.
reducing their sales is a means to an end, not an end of itself.
that end being making MS (and others) realise that they shouldn't do Always-On. If they've already decided they want to do it for the nextbox, they've obviously already considered the popular opinion around always-on (nobody can not know about the general feeling on this feature) and dismissed it as not significant enough to discard the benefits that always-on provides to them/publishers.
I think you are under estimating peoples ability to adapt to evolving technology. There was a time when I would never even consider logging into a software distribution system to play a game online, no matter how much fun counter strike was. Now I have no issue about allowing steam to run.
The same can be said for origin (they have like what 30m accounts?). An always on feature will become more ubiquitous as better service is rendered via it, and as broadband and wifi improve (particularly in the US where it still lags behind other 'developed' nations). Imagine on a always 'ON' console you have maybe 1/1000 bots and cheats in your online play where as the alternative console without is 1/50. This of course is not a real life example, but as a possibility that should exist in the future.
I'm a PC user and my 360 hasn't been turned on since GTA 4 released (and christ if I don't feel the a bit of a draw to hook it back up come September) but technology changes and what is considered unthinkable today can be commonplace tomorrow.
People have no problem with steam because steam simply does it right: You don't have to be online to start the game, you don't have to be online to play the game. You can be online while starting a game, lose connection and never notice until you exit the game and there's a little notification. Literally the only thing you have to be online for is A. buying the game and B. downloading the game. (Of course this is talking about offline games)
Additionally, steam automatically downloads and installs patches with 0 user input required. Purchasing and installing DLC is as simple as buying and installing a game.
The user interface is simple yet effective. Connecting with friends in many games is as simple as clicking on your friends name and hitting join. Not sure wether the server is full or it's a match configuration you want? Just look at the server details for map, gamemode and playercount information.
If this was how the X720 handled no one would have a problem with it. However, the term "ALWAYS on" seems to imply that unlike steam, you will not be able to access your games or any other functions on your console while offline. Meaning you can't take your console with you unless you have fast, secure internet connection or your console will turn into one of the most expensive paperweights you've ever bought. We also have no idea if the user interface, joining friends, maintining patches or purchasing DLC will be nearly as easy as it is on steam.
Not to mention that even if you have a fast enough internet connection to download larger games or play online lag-free like me, that doesn't mean the connection is stable or fast enough for games twice as big or any kind of streaming of information related to "DRM" - wether you want it or not.
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited April 2013
It's worth noting I'll definitely be buying one of the console versions of Diablo III: It has been confirmed to have offline (at least on PS4) and will be couch coopable (I feel my wife can more than get into that game).
And again on the internet rage: I remember how people reacted to Sony announcing the PS3 at $600. That was pure internet rage as well, especially with comments like "People will get a second job". How did having a ton of hubris and entirely ignoring their customers work out for them again? Microsoft will go the same way here.
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
Never before would I think people would be excited at the prospect of playing a singleplayer/local multiplayer game without the Internet.
Not getting on your case or anything Aegeri, because I'm pretty much with you (well, except I have no intention of ever playing D3, but everything else). It's just... man.
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited April 2013
This is a bit of an aside, but couch coop is becoming essential to me playing games regularly. Any game I can play with my wife is worth immeasurably more than anything else. For example Spelunky, Terraria and Minecraft are some of the most played games on my 360 because I can play them with her. I am nearly 100% certain Diablo III will appeal to her and that will provide us with hours of fun, solely because of the couch coop. What provides her with fun also means I get to play more games during the week - so it's literally the best situation possible for me. I didn't buy Diablo III because it required an always online connection (pretty stupidly IMO) but if the console version doesn't then it's pretty much an automatic sale to me due to the couch coop.
Edit: And yes I realize how utterly incredibly absurd this all is. This is unfortunately the future we are going towards.
Never before would I think people would be excited at the prospect of playing a singleplayer/local multiplayer game without the Internet.
I just wanted to throw my two cents in here because this is one point that I think is being missed and I've personally seen.
WoW takes down their servers most Tuesdays for maintenance. It's annoying when I have a Tuesday free but hey, it's an MMO, there's really no option there so I put up with it. Even so there are a number of people who are intensely annoyed by this. Imagine if Tuesday was your one day off this week. Guess you're not running LFR this week Timmy.
I got Diablo III for free because of the one-year subscription promotion. I loved Diablo and (to a lesser extent) Diablo II but they were never multiplayer games for me. So one Tuesday when WoW is down I decide that I will instead play DIII. Imagine my annoyance when the servers, which I don't really have any use for, are down and rather than just playing the game by myself, which is what I intended to do anyway, my only option is to get fucked.
I still play WoW. I don't play DIII anymore.
tl;dr: Even if everything is going well and you have a spectacular internet connection you're still going to get screwed by always on at some point.
I think the Steam point of presentation and a softer 'always' in terms of always on is probably the best one.
Very few people would give a shit if all that you needed a connection for was first time set up and then online stuff if you wanted to do any. Sure it'd be a pain for some people to get first time set up done, but I doubt the vast majority would mind.
But at that point you're just describing an optionally on system more or less so not really much there. I mean, technically steam now is optionally on in that if I never wanted to go online again I could still play all my Steam games.
As much as I'd like to believe that Microsoft is digging its own grave, I'm actually pretty worried that it will succeed. Microsoft loves exclusivity contracts, and developers love DRM. The next XBox will have DRM built in at seemingly no charge to the publisher, making the Xbox the ideal platform for AAA titles. Hell, publishers can even avoid most negative PR caused by DRM and an anti used games stance by publishing on the 720 alone. Exclusivity and the popularity of a console within social circles greatly drive sales. Sony seems to have little chance if they can't attract enough big budget titles, third party developers, and provide a quality online service.
Premature doom and gloom? Sure. But things don't look so great from my perspective. The prospect of a post-720 GFWL gives me chills as a primarily PC gamer. Cracks and mods mean little since at that point they'd only be a reactionary stopgap to a changed status quo.
I dunno. Look at the immense shitstorms caused just by games that have always-online DRM; Ubisoft dropped the idea entirely, and the stuff with Diablo 3 and Simcity have soured a lot of people on something they shouldn't even have been able to notice, much less had interfering with their games. Now imagine that applied to a system that not only won't play any of your old game, but you have to buy new copies all the time to play anything and the always-online hassle applies to every game.
That always-online notion would lock out a huge portion of the market.
Diablo 3 sold like 12+ million copies. Simcity sold a fair amount too.
I bought Diablo 3, so this is true. It is also true that Blizzard pissed me off badly enough with their horrid, horrid execution, that I shall exert my will, and never buy another Blizzard game ever again. The same applies to E.A. Further, the degree of my ire is such that I shall also go out of my way to influence other people to never purchase their products in the future.
How many more players than me, do you suppose have a similar mindset, after getting burned, thusly?
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Yeah that whole concept is weird. "Well the game sold anyway so people must not mind it!" Why don't we look at the next game sold to see if there was an impact? :P
+1
Ov3rchargeR.I.P. Mass EffectYou were dead to me for yearsRegistered Userregular
As much as I'd like to believe that Microsoft is digging its own grave, I'm actually pretty worried that it will succeed. Microsoft loves exclusivity contracts, and developers love DRM. The next XBox will have DRM built in at seemingly no charge to the publisher, making the Xbox the ideal platform for AAA titles. Hell, publishers can even avoid most negative PR caused by DRM and an anti used games stance by publishing on the 720 alone. Exclusivity and the popularity of a console within social circles greatly drive sales. Sony seems to have little chance if they can't attract enough big budget titles, third party developers, and provide a quality online service.
Premature doom and gloom? Sure. But things don't look so great from my perspective. The prospect of a post-720 GFWL gives me chills as a primarily PC gamer. Cracks and mods mean little since at that point they'd only be a reactionary stopgap to a changed status quo.
I dunno. Look at the immense shitstorms caused just by games that have always-online DRM; Ubisoft dropped the idea entirely, and the stuff with Diablo 3 and Simcity have soured a lot of people on something they shouldn't even have been able to notice, much less had interfering with their games. Now imagine that applied to a system that not only won't play any of your old game, but you have to buy new copies all the time to play anything and the always-online hassle applies to every game.
That always-online notion would lock out a huge portion of the market.
Diablo 3 sold like 12+ million copies. Simcity sold a fair amount too.
I bought Diablo 3, so this is true. It is also true that Blizzard pissed me off badly enough with their horrid, horrid execution, that I shall exert my will, and never buy another Blizzard game ever again. The same applies to E.A. Further, the degree of my ire is such that I shall also go out of my way to influence other people to never purchase their products in the future.
How many more players than me, do you suppose have a similar mindset, after getting burned, thusly?
I'm in the same boat. Stopped playing Diablo after two weeks because I was tired of putting up with the servers shitting the bed.
Posts
EA announced that Sim City sold about 1.1 million or so the first week.
Then they went awfully quiet about the sales immediately after. I am really curious to see how Sim City went after the news about the server disaster spread beyond the first week and the review score on metacritic entirely tanked afterwards. I think Blizzard being Blizzard got away with one on Diablo 3 but I am doubting that EA managed to with Sim City (especially when players begun tearing the game apart to show how shallow its gameplay actually is).
Diablo and Sim City are games. They're individual titles. They can afford to piss off a big portion of the installed base because they can thrive off a portion of that same installed base (no game not named Minesweeper or Solitaire has reached 100% of a platform). I have little doubt that the 360 installed base could support an MMO with 12 million users as well. The problem then becomes when the platform itself takes an action that pisses people off to the point that functionality is impaired. When Sim City or Diablo were down, you could still play Skyrim. But think back to 2011 when PSN went down. Users couldn't buy stuff from the store or play online games, but everything else still worked (including non-PSN online services like Netflix). But with this new idea of connectivity, the console would have been effectively bricked until they got PSN back up.
Yeah, I'm really curious how Simcity ended up selling. I think it's likely to be worse off the D3 not because of the company, but because it seemed to affect more people or be worse.
The larger point is that I don't think always-online is as anathema to the consumer as many seem to think. Or would like.
The console market may well react differently though. We'll have to see what MS actually does.
Also consumers did not have a choice with Sim City or Diablo 3. If they wanted to play those games they had no choice but to deal with the always online. That won't be the case with the new Xbox, since the PS4 will have an almost entirely identical selection of games without the always online component.
Now publishers may prefer to only publish there games on the always online XBOX but in this new world of AAA titles needed ridiculous levels of sales they will have no choice but to publish on the PS4 assuming the initial PS4 sales are not WIIU levels of bad.
Early sales of your game are based off of the impressions people had of your previous titles and not the game you put out right now. This only doesn't apply when a game switches to a new console (not applicable for a PC game at all) or when the game has a ton of negative press surrounding it.
D4 sales will plummet unless Blizzard turns the game around with expansions.
Uh, no. D3 sold 3.5 million it's first day, ~6.5 million it's first week and about 12+ million to date. It sees like 1 million unique users a day. It both sold well after the initial server issues had already hit the news and continues to have a fairly healthy user base. There's no reason to think D3 expansion sales or D4 sales (a decade from now) will plummet at all, nor to think the bad press has been particularly hard on the games sales or future sales.
There may be truth in frandelgearslip's point about a lack of choice in these cases (people may perper no always-online if possible), but the evidence seems pretty good that people are quite willingly to simply deal with it.
The PC audience, at the very least, just doesn't care that much. Maybe console buyers care more? Who knows at this point.
Oh really? Based on what?
Cause the actual numbers seem to suggest this whole "people are fed up" and "Diablo 3 is a failure" thing is internet hyperbole not grounded in reality.
There is the expectation that d3 will improve via expansions, the vanilla d2 if you remember wasnt exactly stellar (good not great until expansions) and blizzard has always dedicated resources after release of a game to refine and tune the game to remain 'fresh'.
In my opinion EA does not have a bar set as high as Blizzard as a Dev/Publisher and I'd be curious if the target audience for Sim City is as large as the target audience of D3. It could be entirely possible based on their marketing strategy and development costs that 1.5 M units is a success 2.5m is new boats for all upper management at EA and 5m is a triumph.
With the console, it's going to affect everything. Today you can't play Halo 5. Tomorrow you can't play CoD5. If the issues keep compounding, one after another in rapid succession, people will snap and wise up. And at that point they'll write the console off and junk it, going to whoever is offering the path of least resistance.
Has it?
I'm saying you are continuing to make suppositions about the effect of the game and it's always online component based on, at best, anecdotal internet whinging. It's not a credible basis for much of anything.
The game, and HOTS afaik, seem to be doing fine so I'm not seeing how any of what happened effected much of anything.
I'm sure they can, I'm not seeing why it matters though. "They whinged and whined about it and then bought it anyway" is not a terribly bad outcome for the company making the product.
Consumer purchasing decisions say more about what they actually value and think then what people complain about.
I agree, but then again the 360 was still pretty populer even in spite of the ubiquitous RROD. Of course it's not the same thing, and Microsoft had a semi decent warranty going, I'm worried about how much gamers put with when it comes to platforms.
The same can be said for origin (they have like what 30m accounts?). An always on feature will become more ubiquitous as better service is rendered via it, and as broadband and wifi improve (particularly in the US where it still lags behind other 'developed' nations). Imagine on a always 'ON' console you have maybe 1/1000 bots and cheats in your online play where as the alternative console without is 1/50. This of course is not a real life example, but as a possibility that should exist in the future.
I'm a PC user and my 360 hasn't been turned on since GTA 4 released (and christ if I don't feel the a bit of a draw to hook it back up come September) but technology changes and what is considered unthinkable today can be commonplace tomorrow.
You're assuming that every company ever doesn't listen to any feedback whatsoever, be it letters, emails, etc. Yes there are some companies (EA) that do this, but not every company follows that trait.
Anyway I wish today's PA comic were true because it'd be a way better discussion we could be having:
I'm assuming a company that looks at a bunch of internet wharble-garble and then looks at a balance sheet saying "Game makes shitloads of money" comes to the conclusion that said wharble-garble is not representative of the general feelings of their consumers and/or particularly relevant.
If it isn't, it will be dismissed.
And so far, I don't think any always-online game has sold badly.
Well. Best case scenario. Real-life scenario is two execs talking about how ridiculous fans are while drinking scotch and snorting money off of other money.
Problem is, how many people do it without using abusive language.
the goal isn't to make a dent in their bottom line. that isn't the end goal.
the end goal is to show them that always-on is wrong, and if they have already decided to go that way, I don't think you're going to be able to change their mind - they are well aware of how much everyone hates it.
Sales data, bottom line, same thing.
But but... pirates!
Really though, this logic fails to enter into the decisions of the corporate machine. Honestly it comes down to "Make the most money and let PR try and handle the rest." These places don't have to 'cater' to their customers anymore because there are so many people still buying their products they don't care and it's just where we are right now.
@Henroid - You nailed it on the head imo. I think the World of Warcraft forums are a good example of the 'active community' being represented by the wrong folk. There are other communities I could point to, but this is one of the 'larger' ones.
There is a percentage of people who do not care and just enjoy their time.
There is a percentage of people who do care, but don't say anything out loud because they figure it is useless among the sea of opinions.
There is a percentage of people who do care and make a few detailed, suggestive, well-thought, and constructive comments/posts/ideas. These get a few solid posts and then drop to the bottom because "LOL TOO LONG DID NOT READ!"
There is another percentage who scream and whine like 8 year olds and call the company everything but a child of God. These are the ones that tend to post the most and be considered 'the loudest.'
"X Company are shitfucks" is gonna get you the most response unfortunately, and that is what makes and stays on the surface. Some people have their finger on the pulse of what is going on, and some... just have it jammed up their ass. Generally speaking of course.
you're missing my point.
reducing their sales is a means to an end, not an end of itself.
that end being making MS (and others) realise that they shouldn't do Always-On. If they've already decided they want to do it for the nextbox, they've obviously already considered the popular opinion around always-on (nobody can not know about the general feeling on this feature) and dismissed it as not significant enough to discard the benefits that always-on provides to them/publishers.
Yeah that's what I'm saying.
People have no problem with steam because steam simply does it right: You don't have to be online to start the game, you don't have to be online to play the game. You can be online while starting a game, lose connection and never notice until you exit the game and there's a little notification. Literally the only thing you have to be online for is A. buying the game and B. downloading the game. (Of course this is talking about offline games)
Additionally, steam automatically downloads and installs patches with 0 user input required. Purchasing and installing DLC is as simple as buying and installing a game.
The user interface is simple yet effective. Connecting with friends in many games is as simple as clicking on your friends name and hitting join. Not sure wether the server is full or it's a match configuration you want? Just look at the server details for map, gamemode and playercount information.
If this was how the X720 handled no one would have a problem with it. However, the term "ALWAYS on" seems to imply that unlike steam, you will not be able to access your games or any other functions on your console while offline. Meaning you can't take your console with you unless you have fast, secure internet connection or your console will turn into one of the most expensive paperweights you've ever bought. We also have no idea if the user interface, joining friends, maintining patches or purchasing DLC will be nearly as easy as it is on steam.
Not to mention that even if you have a fast enough internet connection to download larger games or play online lag-free like me, that doesn't mean the connection is stable or fast enough for games twice as big or any kind of streaming of information related to "DRM" - wether you want it or not.
Steam ID: 76561198021298113
Origin ID: SR71C_Blackbird
And again on the internet rage: I remember how people reacted to Sony announcing the PS3 at $600. That was pure internet rage as well, especially with comments like "People will get a second job". How did having a ton of hubris and entirely ignoring their customers work out for them again? Microsoft will go the same way here.
Not getting on your case or anything Aegeri, because I'm pretty much with you (well, except I have no intention of ever playing D3, but everything else). It's just... man.
Edit: And yes I realize how utterly incredibly absurd this all is. This is unfortunately the future we are going towards.
I just wanted to throw my two cents in here because this is one point that I think is being missed and I've personally seen.
WoW takes down their servers most Tuesdays for maintenance. It's annoying when I have a Tuesday free but hey, it's an MMO, there's really no option there so I put up with it. Even so there are a number of people who are intensely annoyed by this. Imagine if Tuesday was your one day off this week. Guess you're not running LFR this week Timmy.
I got Diablo III for free because of the one-year subscription promotion. I loved Diablo and (to a lesser extent) Diablo II but they were never multiplayer games for me. So one Tuesday when WoW is down I decide that I will instead play DIII. Imagine my annoyance when the servers, which I don't really have any use for, are down and rather than just playing the game by myself, which is what I intended to do anyway, my only option is to get fucked.
I still play WoW. I don't play DIII anymore.
tl;dr: Even if everything is going well and you have a spectacular internet connection you're still going to get screwed by always on at some point.
0431-6094-6446-7088
Very few people would give a shit if all that you needed a connection for was first time set up and then online stuff if you wanted to do any. Sure it'd be a pain for some people to get first time set up done, but I doubt the vast majority would mind.
But at that point you're just describing an optionally on system more or less so not really much there. I mean, technically steam now is optionally on in that if I never wanted to go online again I could still play all my Steam games.
I bought Diablo 3, so this is true. It is also true that Blizzard pissed me off badly enough with their horrid, horrid execution, that I shall exert my will, and never buy another Blizzard game ever again. The same applies to E.A. Further, the degree of my ire is such that I shall also go out of my way to influence other people to never purchase their products in the future.
How many more players than me, do you suppose have a similar mindset, after getting burned, thusly?
I'm in the same boat. Stopped playing Diablo after two weeks because I was tired of putting up with the servers shitting the bed.